Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

no I meant the document expert that has testified in courts in cases on documents. However I do find the people supporting Barrack on this to be very
hypocritical, I however have stated several times I don't know and I don't care but I think it's a setup of some sort.

Riddle me this Batman... If all you say is true why did Barracks lawyers claim privacy issues and harms? Why if it's all easy cheesy doesn't your
man Barrack just get a certified copy of the Hawaiian BC and release it? Seems to me you want to put the onus on us to prove a negative instead of on
the candidate himself, interesting to say the least. Or is it that you don't care if he is eligible for the job? What if it was Bush or Cheney, would
you be so willing to just TRUST THEM???

If there is nothing to it he should release it yet he releases attorneys to hide it giving threads and stories like this footholds, why? Again I think
it's on purpose but I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am not a Republican or a Democrat nor am I black voter that only voted for the black guy
cause he was black...

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating and this BC thing is Barracks to clear up, and if he don't release a certified copy be sure to
recall your stance when a Republican or Independent runs with questions of his Birth or eligibility, I am sure you won't because this isn't about
Right or Wrong with most of you it's about some political party or skin color..

Disgusting to me as an AMERICAN to say the least.. I question everything and everyone in Government I do NOT only question those I dislike or disagree
with, but then I am a TRUE PATRIOT according to the founders and not a sunshine soldier and summer Patriot,...

nough said.. Barrack don't release it and keeps his attorneys in it, this proves he has something to hide and only a reasonable person will see it
that way, because the opposite is true. If he had nothing to hide he would have already released it...

Forget it danx, there is too much love for the man here to actually discuss things like this. To them it's all about the 'winning' of something
(although some here still think this has something to do with him being half-white).

Frankly, a requirement like this is not earth-shattering until it threatens their 'winner.'

They will never accept the matter as it is intended, a simple procedural hurdle that all candidates face.

Their defense is simple: "Shut up already. We rock, you obviously don't."

Fortunately, the courts have committed to determine what the deal is. Sadly we will never know exactly what the judges will discuss other than what
they are inclined to reveal. I don't care what the end product is, because I have seen too many indications that this is politics as usual.

Look back at the post, pages and pages of whining and thrashing over something that they seem unwilling to accept. He has not met the requirement.
We have spent thousands of man-hours debating this and at the end of the argument - he STILL hasn't met the requirement. Instead we see excuses and
machination trying to negate the requirement, negate the requirement for him specifically, negate the right to demand he meet the requirement, and of
course, if you dare to state you really want to know, you're obviously a racist neo-con or some other such obtuse nonsense.

Forget it danx, there is too much love for the man here to actually discuss things like this. To them it's all about the 'winning' of something
(although some here still think this has something to do with him being half-white).

Frankly, a requirement like this is not earth-shattering until it threatens their 'winner.'

They will never accept the matter as it is intended, a simple procedural hurdle that all candidates face.

Their defense is simple: "Shut up already. We rock, you obviously don't."

Fortunately, the courts have committed to determine what the deal is. Sadly we will never know exactly what the judges will discuss other than what
they are inclined to reveal. I don't care what the end product is, because I have seen too many indications that this is politics as usual.

Look back at the post, pages and pages of whining and thrashing over something that they seem unwilling to accept. He has not met the requirement.
We have spent thousands of man-hours debating this and at the end of the argument - he STILL hasn't met the requirement. Instead we see excuses and
machination trying to negate the requirement, negate the requirement for him specifically, negate the right to demand he meet the requirement, and of
course, if you dare to state you really want to know, you're obviously a racist neo-con or some other such obtuse nonsense.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Maxmars]

your dellusional

it's like, you don't know how to act. When you are an Obama, you don't bend over to people. You just trashed the Clinton's. You are a super
natural beast.

You walk around with swagger like your Jay-Z.

You were President of the Harvard Review.

You been dominating people your whole life.

Now some weasels at the bottom who are jealous claim that your not an American and demand to be shown your B.C.

So you tell them to go to hell like you've told everyone your whole life. And you'll see them in court. Hope you have deep pockets.

That's just what YOU do when YOUR Obama. He isn't like YOU or ME. When someone challenges Obama Obama beats them at their own game. He is going to
drag this out in court and embarrass the people and make them famous.

Excuse me... you don't know if he's met the requirement or not. The requirement is to be a natural-born citizen. There is no requirement that he
prove to all the American people that he was born in the US or that he show his vault-copy birth certificate to anyone. There is no such
requirement.

As far as meeting the requirement, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not he needs to prove his citizenship further than he already has.

AMEN MAX!!! Couldn't have said it better myself, the only one keeping this alive is Barrack and his attorneys, if he didn't have anything to hide he
wouldn't be hiding now would he?

This is as you stated about some dog they have in the hunt and if the shoes were reversed they would be screaming bloody murder over it, but alas it
is not about what is right or wrong but being right even if you're wrong...

Dr. Paul should have won, we know him to be born in America for sure and both, it seems, of the arty candidates were born outside the U.S.
geographically speaking...

Excuse me... you don't know if he's met the requirement or not. The requirement is to be a natural-born citizen. There is no requirement that he
prove to all the American people that he was born in the US or that he show his vault-copy birth certificate to anyone. There is no such
requirement.

As far as meeting the requirement, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not he needs to prove his citizenship further than he already has.

why do you even bother BH? Your too noble a person! The guy your arguing with doesn't care about reality! Hes living in fantasy ATS world where he a
mercenary taking down the Obama administration

Just as I figure Jack, if you can't argue the position or point go to Ad Hominid attacks, good show, of course it is completely against ATS rules and
only proves you have nothing to add to this conversation worth reading.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
The guy your arguing with doesn't care about reality! Hes living in fantasy ATS world where he a mercenary taking down the Obama administration

Golly, I didn't know that.

I usually don't pay too much attention to who said what unless it really hits me.

And I'm not arguing with him/her. I'm adding information for anyone to read. If someone reads my post and thinks... "You know, that blabbermouth BH
person has a point. There is no Constitutional requirement for Obama to prove to all of us that he meets the requirements", then I feel pretty
good.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Just for the record, it's his campaign staff and his party that I fault, not him.

That is so strange... Because he is the only one who could release his BC and "prove" what many are demanding of him. Yet you hold others
responsible. Just strange.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Just for the record, it's his campaign staff and his party that I fault, not him.

That is so strange... Because he is the only one who could release his BC and "prove" what many are demanding of him. Yet you hold others
responsible. Just strange.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

It wasn't always so. I believe the word used earlier is 'vetting'.

It's not rocket science. And for the record (again) I don't care if I never see his documents, but I do want someone other than a party-member or
devotee to affirm for the record that his qualification has been confirmed.

Hence I eagerly await the results of the SCOTUS 'discussion'. I'm fairly certain all will be forgiven, if need be, and if not, the joke is on
those who wasted all their resources pursuing a red-herring.

Max...Lots of right wing rhetoric, no evidence. Just because you or a far right blog says so..doesn't make it real.

Give me a single claim in just a sentence or two...without all of the smear propaganda. Keep it basic, simple...a truth you feel is true. Then supply
links to clear law or evidence supporting the claim, not opinions, not youtube document experts etc. etc..Not right wing opinion pieces...

That is what your opposition has been doing. Thorough research and presentation showing these claims to be BS.

What you are doing is just saying things and then complaining that no one listens...well support your claims with evidence, links, sources.

Just give me one tidbit and support it. No BS, just one factoid and supporting evidence to make your case.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
If all you say is true why did Barracks lawyers claim privacy issues and harms?

As far as I know, that's not exactly what happened. What Obama's lawyers have claimed is that Berg's lawsuit was without merit, and apparently the
(lower) Court agreed and dismissed the case.

The privacy issues were claimed by Hawaiian officials, who said that according to State laws they couldn't release Barack Obama's birth
certificate.

Why if it's all easy cheesy doesn't your man Barrack just get a certified copy of the Hawaiian BC and release it?

No one, with any legal standing or authority, has requested him to. All the lawsuits were dismissed, and until a Court requests him to present it,
he's not obliged to present it.

In fact, I'm sure that if any Court would request it, it would be to review it only, and it wouldn't be released to the public.

Seems to me you want to put the onus on us to prove a negative instead of on the candidate himself, interesting to say the least. Or is it that
you don't care if he is eligible for the job?

As a Barack Obama supporter I have also difficulty understanding that - even though he is not required to do so - why doesn't he clear this once and
for all.

But, first of all, we have to remember that Obama has taught Constitutional law for 12 years. I would think (and hope) he knows what he's doing
better than any of us can suppose the reasons behind his actions are.

Let's make this mental exercise though: Imagine he releases his birth certificate. What if someone then - with or without merit - claims it is fake,
forged or invalid? Probably someone would take him to Court then. In all likeliness, no matter what, someone would take him to Court anyway.

And what other way is there to assert the validity of his birth certificate unless it's through the Highest authority? Unless the Supreme Court
decides on it, there would always be a doubt, or at least, probability for people to appeal and drag this on.

Even if the Supreme Court decides (and I'm sure it will have to), there will be people that will doubt it.

So, my guess is that Obama and his lawyers are waiting for a lawsuit with merit, that the Supreme Court agrees to hear, and decide on it once and for
all.

Or...
I could be totally wrong and he is hiding the fact that he wasn't born in the US, and therefor can't be President, even though he's a lawyer who
studied and taught Constitutional law, and while being aware of all this, still decided to run for President...

Doesn't make much sense to me. But in any case, I don't have any evidence to doubt his reasons, because unlike Bush - who you referenced in your
post - he hasn't done anything to make me suspicious of his intentions.

No, he doesn't have to prove it to all of us; that is not a Constitutional requirement. But, with 17 court cases in numerous states, he needs to
prove it to someone. He needs to end this by stepping up and either showing his vault copy BC to the courts or to the public in general.

What I don't think some people realize is that this election was the first time circumstances like this have been this big of a deal. It has happend
in the past, but that was long before the advent of the 24/7 media (who won't touch this) and the Internet (which has it splashed everywhere).
People have always just assumed that the candidates were born on American soil....but not this time.

People have questions.....questions that need answers. Some people on here (not you, BH) seem to have blind faith in Obama and will follow where ever
he leads without quesiton....that is scary. There are only 3 Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. The citizens of this
country need to be sure that those requirements are met. Smoke and mirrors won't work any longer....a lot of people won't be satisfied with that.

Thats ur first mistake, The US is a Republic not a democracy........
could the president of China be .....mexican? Could the leader of France be Norweigen? The requirment to provide his orginal birth certificate is so
basic. I had to do that to get a passport...why not him.

Originally posted by Maxmars
It wasn't always so. I believe the word used earlier is 'vetting'.

It's not rocket science. And for the record (again) I don't care if I never see his documents, but I do want someone other than a party-member or
devotee to affirm for the record that his qualification has been confirmed.

I've spoken about this too. I find it shocking that no one, before the election, checks if the candidates are eligible or not.

But I have come to terms that, they don't have to be eligible to run. It sounds stupid, but this is, apparently, the reality.

A non-natural born citizen can run for President, he just can't hold the Office if he wins. I have no idea what would happen in a situation like
that.

But if Obama for some reason is found to not be eligible, we'll find out what happens, won't we?

I think the Vice-President elect would act as President (as stated in the 20th Amendment) anyway, but it certainly would perhaps make the Supreme
Court come up with a decision that would find it impossible for non-natural born citizens to run in the future.

Max...Lots of right wing rhetoric, no evidence. Just because you or a far right blog says so..doesn't make it real.

Give me a single claim in just a sentence or two...without all of the smear propaganda. Keep it basic, simple...a truth you feel is true. Then supply
links to clear law or evidence supporting the claim, not opinions, not youtube document experts etc. etc..Not right wing opinion pieces...

That is what your opposition has been doing. Thorough research and presentation showing these claims to be BS.

What you are doing is just saying things and then complaining that no one listens...well support your claims with evidence, links, sources.

Just give me one tidbit and support it. No BS, just one factoid and supporting evidence to make your case.

Right-wing? Congratulations! You have the honor of being the person to complete the list of pidgeon-holes I have been inserted into. Left, Right,
Liberal, Conservative, "mercenary"; AWESOME!

I am asking for evidence too. You want me to provide you with what? Proof that I haven't seen an official affirmative declaration of his 'natural
born status'? Can't prove a negative pal, you seem to be aware of that; so I can only expect that you are the person employing rhetoric here.

What sources can I offer, I want sources myself. One court ruling, one state official, one person empowered and authorized by the government to simply
state "Barak Obama meets the criteria as a natural born American Citizen." That's all. No bells, no whistle, no race, politics, or other
extraneous claims of prejudices or bias. It's a question.

Am I not allowed to ask? Do I not rate an actual answer? - Then say so.

Presumptively many here agree that American people have no right to ask for the assurance that this 230 year-old requirement is met. I am simply
begging to differ in that opinion.

Edit to add: What far-right blog are you thinking I am sourcing? I have said nothing here that hasn't originated from me - and if I did, I am sure
I would have attributed it to it's rightful author.

It matters because the President is Commander in Chief. This means he's the guy who has the final say on when our government is used to kill people.
And no matter who you are, you have a connection to your past, including where you were born. It matters not how much time was spent there, the fact
is people do feel an intimate bond with the place they were born. And if you lead one country that may possibly be at war with other countries
(including, therefore, the other country in which you were born), it is unacceptable to have someone whose allegiance may lie elsewhere in that
position. That's not to say other factors couldn't create that same allegiance, but being born somewhere is a factor that we can KNOW about, and
therefore, do something about. This is why we have such a restriction on eligibility of candidates running for President of the United States of
America. The simple fact is, if any of the principles that we supposedly operate this country by were real, then we would have had this matter
resolved before the election even took place. Since it still has not been resolved, the only conclusion to be drawn is that it does not matter.
Every issue in the universe can be shown to be of dual nature in the same manner that this has. Thank you.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.